Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces
draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces
Network Working Group J. Gould
Internet-Draft VeriSign, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track M. Casanova
Expires: 23 August 2021 SWITCH
19 February 2021
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled Namespaces
draft-ietf-regext-unhandled-namespaces-08
Abstract
The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), as defined in RFC 5730,
includes a method for the client and server to determine the objects
to be managed during a session and the object extensions to be used
during a session. The services are identified using namespace URIs,
and an "unhandled namespace" is one that is associated with a service
not supported by the client. This document defines an operational
practice that enables the server to return information associated
with unhandled namespace URIs that is compliant with the negotiated
services defined in RFC 5730.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 23 August 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2021
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Unhandled Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Use of EPP <extValue> for Unhandled Namespace Data . . . . . 4
3.1. Unhandled Object-Level Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Unhandled Command-Response Extension . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Signaling Client and Server Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Usage with General EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Usage with Poll Message EPP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1. Client Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2. Server Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.1. XML Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.2. EPP Extension Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.1. Verisign EPP SDK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.2. SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process . . . . . . 18
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.3. Change from 02 to REGEXT 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.4. Change from REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01 . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.5. Change from REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02 . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.6. Change from REGEXT 02 to REGEXT 03 . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.7. Change from REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04 . . . . . . . . . . . 21
A.8. Change from REGEXT 04 to REGEXT 05 . . . . . . . . . . . 22
A.9. Change from REGEXT 05 to REGEXT 06 . . . . . . . . . . . 22
A.10. Change from REGEXT 06 to REGEXT 07 . . . . . . . . . . . 22
A.11. Change from REGEXT 07 to REGEXT 08 . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2021
1. Introduction
The Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP), as defined in [RFC5730],
includes a method for the client and server to determine the objects
to be managed during a session and the object extensions to be used
during a session. The services are identified using namespace URIs.
How should the server handle service data that needs to be returned
in the response when the client does not support the required service
namespace URI, which is referred to as an unhandled namespace? An
unhandled namespace is a significant issue for the processing of
[RFC5730] poll messages, since poll messages are inserted by the
server prior to knowing the supported client services, and the client
needs to be capable of processing all poll messages. Returning an
unhandled namespace poll message is not compliant with the negotiated
services defined in [RFC5730] and returning an error makes the
unhandled namespace poll message a poison message by halting the
processing of the poll queue. An unhandled namespace is an issue
also for general EPP responses when the server has information that
it cannot return to the client due to the client's supported
services. The server should be able to return unhandled namespace
information that the client can process later. This document defines
an operational practice that enables the server to return information
associated with unhandled namespace URIs that is compliant with the
negotiated services defined in [RFC5730].
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
XML is case sensitive. Unless stated otherwise, XML specifications
and examples provided in this document MUST be interpreted in the
character case presented in order to develop a conforming
implementation.
In examples, "S:" represents lines returned by a protocol server.
Indentation and white space in examples are provided only to
illustrate element relationships and are not a required feature of
this protocol.
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2021
The examples reference XML namespace prefixes that are used for the
associated XML namespaces. Implementations MUST NOT depend on the
example XML namespaces and instead employ a proper namespace-aware
XML parser and serializer to interpret and output the XML documents.
The example namespace prefixes used and their associated XML
namespaces include:
"changePoll": urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0
"domain": urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0
"secDNS": urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1
In the template example XML, placeholder content is represented by
the following variables:
"[NAMESPACE-XML]": XML content associated with a login service
namespace URI. An example is the <domain:infData> element
content in [RFC5731].
"[NAMESPACE-URI]": XML namespace URI associated with the [NAMESPACE-
XML] XML content. An example is "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-
1.0" in [RFC5731].
2. Unhandled Namespaces
An Unhandled Namespace is an XML namespace that is associated with a
response extension that is not included in the client-specified EPP
login services of [RFC5730]. The EPP login services consists of the
set of XML namespace URIs included in the <objURI> or <extURI>
elements of the [RFC5730] EPP <login> command. The services
supported by the server are included in the <objURI> and <extURI>
elements of the [RFC5730] EPP <greeting>, which should be a superset
of the login services included in the EPP <login> command. A server
may have information associated with a specific namespace that it
needs to return in the response to a client. The unhandled
namespaces problem exists when the server has information that it
needs to return to the client but the namespace of the information is
not supported by the client based on the negotiated EPP <login>
command services.
3. Use of EPP <extValue> for Unhandled Namespace Data
In [RFC5730], the <extValue> element is used to provide additional
error diagnostic information, including the <value> element that
identifies the client-provided element that caused a server error
condition and the <reason> element containing the human-readable
message that describes the reason for the error. This operational
practice extends the use of the <extValue> element for the purpose of
returning unhandled namespace information in a successful response.
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2021
When a server has data to return to the client that the client does
not support based on the login services, the server MAY return a
successful response, with the data for each unsupported namespace
moved into an [RFC5730] <extValue> element. The unhandled namespace
will not cause an error response, but the unhandled namespace data
will instead be moved to an <extValue> element, along with a reason
why the unhandled namespace data could not be included in the
appropriate location of the response. The <extValue> element XML
will not be processed by the XML processor. The <extValue> element
contains the following child elements:
<value>: Contains a child-element with the unhandled namespace XML.
The unhandled namespace MUST be declared in the child element or
any containing element including the root element. XML
processing of the <value> element is disabled by the XML schema
in [RFC5730], so the information can safely be returned in the
<value> element.
<reason>: A formatted human-readable message that indicates the
reason the unhandled namespace data was not returned in the
appropriate location of the response. The formatted reason
SHOULD follow the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) grammar
[RFC5234] format: NAMESPACE-URI "not in login services", where
NAMESPACE-URI is the unhandled XML namespace like
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0" for [RFC5731].
This document applies to the handling of unsupported namespaces for
[RFC3735] object-level extensions and command-response extensions.
This document does not apply to the handling of unsupported
namespaces for [RFC3735] protocol-level extensions or authentication
information extensions. Refer to the following sections on how to
handle an unsupported object-level extension namespace or an
unsupported command-response extension namespace.
3.1. Unhandled Object-Level Extension
An object-level extension in [RFC5730] is a child element of the
<resData> element. If the client does not handle the namespace of
the object-level extension, then the <resData> element is removed and
its object-level extension child element is moved into a [RFC5730]
<extValue> <value> element, with the namespace URI included in the
corresponding <extValue> <reason> element. The response becomes a
general EPP response without the <resData> element.
Template response for a supported object-level extension. The
[NAMESPACE-XML] variable represents the object-level extension XML.
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2021
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: </result>
S: <resData>
S: [NAMESPACE-XML]
S: </resData>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
Template for an unhandled namespace response for an unsupported
object-level extension. The [NAMESPACE-XML] variable represents the
object-level extension XML and the [NAMESPACE-URI] variable
represents the object-level extension XML namespace URI.
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: <extValue>
S: <value>
S: [NAMESPACE-XML]
S: </value>
S: <reason>
S: [NAMESPACE-URI] not in login services
S: </reason>
S: </extValue>
S: </result>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
The EPP response is converted from an object response to a general
EPP response by the server when the client does not support the
object-level extension namespace URI. Below is an example of
converting the <transfer> query response example in Section 3.1.3 of
[RFC5731] to an unhandled namespace response.
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2021
[RFC5731] example <transfer> query response converted into an
unhandled namespace response:
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: <extValue>
S: <value>
S: <domain:trnData
S: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
S: <domain:name>example.com</domain:name>
S: <domain:trStatus>pending</domain:trStatus>
S: <domain:reID>ClientX</domain:reID>
S: <domain:reDate>2000-06-06T22:00:00.0Z</domain:reDate>
S: <domain:acID>ClientY</domain:acID>
S: <domain:acDate>2000-06-11T22:00:00.0Z</domain:acDate>
S: <domain:exDate>2002-09-08T22:00:00.0Z</domain:exDate>
S: </domain:trnData>
S: </value>
S: <reason>
S: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0 not in login services
S: </reason>
S: </extValue>
S: </result>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
3.2. Unhandled Command-Response Extension
A command-response extension in [RFC5730] is a child element of the
<extension> element. If the client does not handle the namespace of
the command-response extension, the command-response child element is
moved into an [RFC5730] <extValue> <value> element, with the
namespace URI included in the corresponding <extValue> <reason>
element. If after moving the command-response child element there
are no additional command-response child elements, the <extension>
element MUST be removed.
Template response for a supported command-response extension. The
[NAMESPACE-XML] variable represents the command-response extension
XML.
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2021
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: </result>
S: <extension>
S: [NAMESPACE-XML]
S: </extension>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
Template unhandled namespace response for an unsupported command-
response extension. The [NAMESPACE-XML] variable represents the
command-response extension XML and the [NAMESPACE-URI] variable
represents the command-response extension XML namespace URI.
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: <extValue>
S: <value>
S: [NAMESPACE-XML]
S: </value>
S: <reason>
S: [NAMESPACE-URI] not in login services
S: </reason>
S: </extValue>
S: </result>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
The EPP response is converted to an unhandled namespace response by
moving the unhandled command-response extension from under the
<extension> to an <extValue> element. Below is example of converting
the DS Data Interface <info> response example in Section 5.1.2 of
[RFC5910] to an unhandled namespace response.
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2021
[RFC5910] DS Data Interface <info> response converted into an
unhandled namespace response:
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"
S: xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: <extValue>
S: <value>
S: <secDNS:infData
S: xmlns:secDNS="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1">
S: <secDNS:dsData>
S: <secDNS:keyTag>12345</secDNS:keyTag>
S: <secDNS:alg>3</secDNS:alg>
S: <secDNS:digestType>1</secDNS:digestType>
S: <secDNS:digest>49FD46E6C4B45C55D4AC</secDNS:digest>
S: </secDNS:dsData>
S: </secDNS:infData>
S: </value>
S: <reason>
S: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1 not in login services
S: </reason>
S: </extValue>
S: </result>
S: <resData>
S: <domain:infData
S: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
S: <domain:name>example.com</domain:name>
S: <domain:roid>EXAMPLE1-REP</domain:roid>
S: <domain:status s="ok"/>
S: <domain:registrant>jd1234</domain:registrant>
S: <domain:contact type="admin">sh8013</domain:contact>
S: <domain:contact type="tech">sh8013</domain:contact>
S: <domain:ns>
S: <domain:hostObj>ns1.example.com</domain:hostObj>
S: <domain:hostObj>ns2.example.com</domain:hostObj>
S: </domain:ns>
S: <domain:host>ns1.example.com</domain:host>
S: <domain:host>ns2.example.com</domain:host>
S: <domain:clID>ClientX</domain:clID>
S: <domain:crID>ClientY</domain:crID>
S: <domain:crDate>1999-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:crDate>
S: <domain:upID>ClientX</domain:upID>
S: <domain:upDate>1999-12-03T09:00:00.0Z</domain:upDate>
S: <domain:exDate>2005-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:exDate>
S: <domain:trDate>2000-04-08T09:00:00.0Z</domain:trDate>
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2021
S: <domain:authInfo>
S: <domain:pw>2fooBAR</domain:pw>
S: </domain:authInfo>
S: </domain:infData>
S: </resData>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
4. Signaling Client and Server Support
This document does not define new EPP protocol elements but rather
specifies an operational practice using the existing EPP protocol,
where the client and the server can signal support for the
operational practice using a namespace URI in the login and greeting
extension services. The namespace URI
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:unhandled-namespaces-1.0" is used to
signal support for the operational practice. The client includes the
namespace URI in an <svcExtension> <extURI> element of the [RFC5730]
<login> Command. The server includes the namespace URI in an
<svcExtension> <extURI> element of the [RFC5730] Greeting.
A client that receives the namespace URI in the server's Greeting
extension services can expect the following supported behavior by the
server:
1. Support unhandled namespace object-level extensions and command-
response extensions in EPP poll messages, per Section 6.
2. Support the option of unhandled namespace command-response
extensions in general EPP responses, per Section 5.
A server that receives the namespace URI in the client's <login>
Command extension services can expect the following supported
behavior by the client:
1. Support monitoring the EPP poll messages and general EPP
responses for unhandled namespaces.
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2021
5. Usage with General EPP Responses
The unhandled namespace approach defined in Section 3 MAY be used for
a general EPP response to an EPP command. A general EPP response
includes any non-poll message EPP response. The use of the unhandled
namespace approach for poll message EPP responses is defined in
Section 6. The server MAY exclude the unhandled namespace
information in the general EPP response or MAY include it using the
unhandled namespace approach.
The unhandled namespace approach for general EPP responses SHOULD
only be applicable to command-response extensions, defined in
Section 3.2, since the server SHOULD NOT accept an object-level EPP
command if the client did not include the object-level namespace URI
in the login services. An object-level EPP response extension is
returned when the server successfully executes an object-level EPP
command extension. The server MAY return an unhandled object-level
extension to the client as defined in Section 3.1.
Returning domain name Redemption Grace Period (RGP) data, based on
[RFC3915], provides an example of applying the unhandled namespace
approach for a general EPP response. If the client does not include
the "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0" namespace URI in the login
services, and the domain <info> response of a domain name does have
RGP information, the server MAY exclude the <rgp:infData> element
from the EPP response or MAY include it under the <extValue> element
per Section 3.2. Below is example of converting the domain name
<info> response example in Section 4.1.2 of [RFC3915] to an unhandled
namespace response.
[RFC5731] domain name <info> response with the unhandled [RFC3915]
<rgp:infData> element included under an <extValue> element:
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"
S: xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
S: xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0
S: epp-1.0.xsd">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1000">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S: <extValue>
S: <value>
S: <rgp:infData xmlns:rgp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0"
S: xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0
S: rgp-1.0.xsd">
S: <rgp:rgpStatus s="redemptionPeriod"/>
S: </rgp:infData>
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2021
S: </value>
S: <reason>
S: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0 not in login services
S: </reason>
S: </extValue>
S: </result>
S: <resData>
S: <domain:infData
S: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0"
S: xsi:schemaLocation="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0
S: domain-1.0.xsd">
S: <domain:name>example.com</domain:name>
S: <domain:roid>EXAMPLE1-REP</domain:roid>
S: <domain:status s="pendingDelete"/>
S: <domain:registrant>jd1234</domain:registrant>
S: <domain:contact type="admin">sh8013</domain:contact>
S: <domain:contact type="tech">sh8013</domain:contact>
S: <domain:ns>
S: <domain:hostObj>ns1.example.com</domain:hostObj>
S: <domain:hostObj>ns1.example.net</domain:hostObj>
S: </domain:ns>
S: <domain:host>ns1.example.com</domain:host>
S: <domain:host>ns2.example.com</domain:host>
S: <domain:clID>ClientX</domain:clID>
S: <domain:crID>ClientY</domain:crID>
S: <domain:crDate>1999-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:crDate>
S: <domain:upID>ClientX</domain:upID>
S: <domain:upDate>1999-12-03T09:00:00.0Z</domain:upDate>
S: <domain:exDate>2005-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:exDate>
S: <domain:trDate>2000-04-08T09:00:00.0Z</domain:trDate>
S: <domain:authInfo>
S: <domain:pw>2fooBAR</domain:pw>
S: </domain:authInfo>
S: </domain:infData>
S: </resData>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2021
6. Usage with Poll Message EPP Responses
The unhandled namespace approach, defined in Section 3, MUST be used
if there is unhandled namespace information included in an EPP <poll>
message response. The server inserts poll messages into the client's
poll queue independent of knowing the supported client login
services, therefore there may be unhandled object-level and command-
response extensions included in a client's poll queue. In [RFC5730],
the <poll> command is used by the client to retrieve and acknowledge
poll messages that have been inserted by the server. The <poll>
message response is an EPP response that includes the <msgQ> element
that provides poll queue meta-data about the message. The unhandled
namespace approach, defined in Section 3, is used for an unhandled
object-level extension and for each of the unhandled command-response
extensions attached to the <poll> message response. The resulting
EPP <poll> message response MAY have either or both the object-level
extension or command-response extensions moved to <extValue>
elements, as defined in Section 3.
The Change Poll Message, as defined in Section 3.1.2 of [RFC8590],
which is an extension of any EPP object, is an example of applying
the unhandled namespace approach for EPP <poll> message responses.
Below are examples of converting the domain name <info> response
example in Section 3.1.2 of [RFC8590] to an unhandled namespace
response. The object that will be used in the examples is a
[RFC5731] domain name object.
[RFC5731] domain name <info> <poll> message response with the
unhandled [RFC8590] <changePoll:changeData> element included under an
<extValue> element:
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1301">
S: <msg lang="en-US">
S: Command completed successfully; ack to dequeue</msg>
S: <extValue>
S: <value>
S: <changePoll:changeData
S: xmlns:changePoll="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0"
S: state="after">
S: <changePoll:operation>update</changePoll:operation>
S: <changePoll:date>
S: 2013-10-22T14:25:57.0Z</changePoll:date>
S: <changePoll:svTRID>12345-XYZ</changePoll:svTRID>
S: <changePoll:who>URS Admin</changePoll:who>
S: <changePoll:caseId type="urs">urs123
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2021
S: </changePoll:caseId>
S: <changePoll:reason>URS Lock</changePoll:reason>
S: </changePoll:changeData>
S: </value>
S: <reason>
S: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0 not in login services
S: </reason>
S: </extValue>
S: </result>
S: <msgQ count="201" id="1">
S: <qDate>2013-10-22T14:25:57.0Z</qDate>
S: <msg>Registry initiated update of domain.</msg>
S: </msgQ>
S: <resData>
S: <domain:infData
S: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
S: <domain:name>domain.example</domain:name>
S: <domain:roid>EXAMPLE1-REP</domain:roid>
S: <domain:status s="ok"/>
S: <domain:registrant>jd1234</domain:registrant>
S: <domain:contact type="admin">sh8013</domain:contact>
S: <domain:contact type="tech">sh8013</domain:contact>
S: <domain:clID>ClientX</domain:clID>
S: <domain:crID>ClientY</domain:crID>
S: <domain:crDate>2012-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:crDate>
S: <domain:exDate>2014-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:exDate>
S: </domain:infData>
S: </resData>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
Unhandled [RFC5731] domain name <info> <poll> message response and
the unhandled [RFC8590] <changePoll:changeData> element included
under an <extValue> element:
S:<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
S:<epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
S: <response>
S: <result code="1301">
S: <msg>Command completed successfully; ack to dequeue</msg>
S: <extValue>
S: <value>
S: <domain:infData
S: xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2021
S: <domain:name>domain.example</domain:name>
S: <domain:roid>EXAMPLE1-REP</domain:roid>
S: <domain:status s="ok"/>
S: <domain:registrant>jd1234</domain:registrant>
S: <domain:contact type="admin">sh8013</domain:contact>
S: <domain:contact type="tech">sh8013</domain:contact>
S: <domain:clID>ClientX</domain:clID>
S: <domain:crID>ClientY</domain:crID>
S: <domain:crDate>2012-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:crDate>
S: <domain:exDate>2014-04-03T22:00:00.0Z</domain:exDate>
S: </domain:infData>
S: </value>
S: <reason>
S: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0 not in login services
S: </reason>
S: </extValue>
S: <extValue>
S: <value>
S: <changePoll:changeData
S: xmlns:changePoll=
S: "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0"
S: state="after">
S: <changePoll:operation>update</changePoll:operation>
S: <changePoll:date>
S: 2013-10-22T14:25:57.0Z</changePoll:date>
S: <changePoll:svTRID>12345-XYZ</changePoll:svTRID>
S: <changePoll:who>URS Admin</changePoll:who>
S: <changePoll:caseId type="urs">urs123
S: </changePoll:caseId>
S: <changePoll:reason>URS Lock</changePoll:reason>
S: </changePoll:changeData>
S: </value>
S: <reason>
S: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0 not in login services
S: </reason>
S: </extValue>
S: </result>
S: <msgQ count="201" id="1">
S: <qDate>2013-10-22T14:25:57.0Z</qDate>
S: <msg>Registry initiated update of domain.</msg>
S: </msgQ>
S: <trID>
S: <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
S: <svTRID>54322-XYZ</svTRID>
S: </trID>
S: </response>
S:</epp>
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2021
7. Implementation Considerations
There are implementation considerations for the client and the server
to help address the risk of the client ignoring unhandled namespace
information included in an EPP response that is needed to meet
technical, policy, or legal requirements.
7.1. Client Implementation Considerations
To reduce the likelihood of a client receiving unhandled namespace
information, the client should consider implementing the following:
1. Ensure that the client presents the complete set of what it
supports when presenting its login services. If there are gaps
between the services supported by the client and the login
services included in the login command, the client may receive
unhandled namespace information that the client could have
supported.
2. Support all of the services included in the server greeting
services that may be included in an EPP response, including the
poll queue responses. The client should evaluate the gaps
between the greeting services and the login services provided in
the login command to identify extensions that need to be
supported.
3. Proactively monitor for unhandled namespace information in the
EPP responses by looking for the inclusion of the <extValue>
element in successful responses, recording the unsupported
namespace included in the <reason> element, and recording the
unhandled namespace information included in the <value> element
for later processing. The unhandled namespace should be
implemented by the client to ensure that information is processed
fully in future EPP responses.
7.2. Server Implementation Considerations
To assist the clients in recognizing unhandled namespaces, the server
should consider implementing the following:
1. Monitor for returning unhandled namespace information to clients
and report it to the clients out-of-band to EPP so the clients
can add support for the unhandled namespaces.
2. Look for the unhandled namespace support in the login services
when returning optional unhandled namespace information in
General EPP Responses.
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2021
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. XML Namespace
This document uses URNs to describe XML namespaces conforming to a
registry mechanism described in [RFC3688]. The following URI
assignment is requested of IANA:
Registration request for the unhandled namespaces namespace:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:unhandled-namespaces-1.0
Registrant Contact: IESG
XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification.
8.2. EPP Extension Registry
The EPP operational practice described in this document should be
registered by the IANA in the EPP Extension Registry described in
[RFC7451]. The details of the registration are as follows:
Name of Extension: "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Unhandled
Namespaces"
Document status: Standards Track
Reference: (insert reference to RFC version of this document)
Registrant Name and Email Address: IETF, <iesg@ietf.org>
TLDs: Any
IPR Disclosure: None
Status: Active
Notes: None
9. Implementation Status
Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to
RFC 7942 [RFC7942] before publication.
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942
[RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is
intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing
drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2021
implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.
Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information
presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not
intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available
implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that
other implementations may exist.
According to RFC 7942 [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and
working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the
benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable
experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols
more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this
information as they see fit".
9.1. Verisign EPP SDK
Organization: Verisign Inc.
Name: Verisign EPP SDK
Description: The Verisign EPP SDK includes an implementation of the
unhandled namespaces for the processing of the poll queue messages.
Level of maturity: Development
Coverage: All aspects of the protocol are implemented.
Licensing: GNU Lesser General Public License
Contact: jgould@verisign.com
URL: https://www.verisign.com/en_US/channel-resources/domain-
registry-products/epp-sdks
9.2. SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process
Organization: SWITCH
Name: Registry of .CH and .LI
Description: SWITCH uses poll messages to inform the registrar about
DNSSEC changes at the registry triggered by CDS records. These poll
messages are enriched with the 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-
1.0' and the 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1' extension that are
rendered in the poll msg response according to this draft.
Level of maturity: Operational
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2021
Coverage: All aspects of the protocol are implemented.
Licensing: Proprietary
Contact: martin.casanova@switch.ch
URL: https://www.nic.ch/cds
10. Security Considerations
This document does not provide any security services beyond those
described by EPP [RFC5730] and protocol layers used by EPP. The
security considerations described in these other specifications apply
to this specification as well. Since the unhandled namespace context
is XML that is not processed in the first pass by the XML parser, the
client SHOULD validate the XML when the content is processed to
protect against the inclusion of malicious content.
11. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the following persons for their feedback
and suggestions: Thomas Corte, Scott Hollenbeck, Patrick Mevzek, and
Marcel Parodi.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC5730] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5730>.
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2021
[RFC5731] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Domain Name Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5731,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5731, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5731>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
12.2. Informative References
[RFC3735] Hollenbeck, S., "Guidelines for Extending the Extensible
Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3735,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3735, March 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3735>.
[RFC3915] Hollenbeck, S., "Domain Registry Grace Period Mapping for
the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 3915,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3915, September 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3915>.
[RFC5910] Gould, J. and S. Hollenbeck, "Domain Name System (DNS)
Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible
Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 5910,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5910, May 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5910>.
[RFC7451] Hollenbeck, S., "Extension Registry for the Extensible
Provisioning Protocol", RFC 7451, DOI 10.17487/RFC7451,
February 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7451>.
[RFC8590] Gould, J. and K. Feher, "Change Poll Extension for the
Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)", RFC 8590,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8590, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8590>.
Appendix A. Change History
A.1. Change from 00 to 01
1. Removed xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
reference from examples.
2. removed <extension></extension> block from example.
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2021
3. added SWITCH Automated DNSSEC Provisioning Process at
Implementation Status
A.2. Change from 01 to 02
1. Ping update
A.3. Change from 02 to REGEXT 00
1. Changed to regext working group draft by changing draft-gould-
casanova-regext-unhandled-namespaces to draft-ietf-regext-
unhandled-namespaces.
A.4. Change from REGEXT 00 to REGEXT 01
1. Added the "Signaling Client and Server Support" section to
describe the mechanism to signal support for the BCP by the
client and the server.
2. Added the IANA Considerations section with the registration of
the unhandled namespaces XML namespace and the registration of
the EPP Best Current Practice (BCP) in the EPP Extension
Registry.
A.5. Change from REGEXT 01 to REGEXT 02
1. Filled in the acknowledgements section.
2. Changed the reference from RFC 5730 to RFC 5731 for the transfer
example in section 3.1 "Unhandled Object-Level" Extension.
3. Updated the XML namespace to
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:unhandled-namespaces-1.0, which
removed bcp from the namespace and bumped the version from 0.1
and 1.0. Inclusion of bcp in the XML namespace was discussed at
the REGEXT interim meeting.
A.6. Change from REGEXT 02 to REGEXT 03
1. Converted from xml2rfc v2 to v3.
2. Updated Acknowledgements to match the approach taken by the RFC
Editor with draft-ietf-regext-login-security.
3. Changed reference of ietf-regext-change-poll to RFC 8590.
A.7. Change from REGEXT 03 to REGEXT 04
1. Changed from Best Current Practice (BCP) to Standards Track based
on mailing list discussion.
2. Revised the dates in the examples to be more up-to-date.
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2021
A.8. Change from REGEXT 04 to REGEXT 05
1. Based on feedback from Thomas Corte, added a description of the
<extValue> element in RFC 5730 and it being extended to support
returning unhandled namespace information.
2. Based on feedback from Thomas Corte, added a Implementation
Considerations section to cover client and server implementation
recommendations such as monitoring unhandled namespaces in the
server to report to the clients out-of-band and monitoring for
responses containing unhanded namespace information in the client
to proactively add support for the unhandled namespaces.
3. Moved RFC 3735 and RFC 7451 to informative references to address
down reference errors in idnits.
A.9. Change from REGEXT 05 to REGEXT 06
1. Nit updates made based on the feedback provided by the Document
Shepherd, David Smith.
A.10. Change from REGEXT 06 to REGEXT 07
Updates based on the Barry Leiba (AD) feedback:
1. Simplified the abstract based on the proposal provided by the AD.
2. In section 1.1, updated to use the new BCP 14 boilerplate and add
a normative reference to RFC 8174.
3. In section 1.1, changed "REQUIRED feature of this protocol" to
"required feature of this protocol".
4. In section 3, added "by the XML schema" in "disabled by the XML
schema in [RFC5730]" to clarify the statement.
5. In section 8.2, changed the Registrant Name from "IESG" to
"IETF".
6. In section 10, changed "The document do not provide" to "This
document does not provide".
7. In section 10, added the sentence "Since the unhandled namespace
context is XML that is not processed in the first pass by the XML
parser, the client SHOULD consider validating the XML when the
content is processed to protect against the inclusion of
malicious content.".
A.11. Change from REGEXT 07 to REGEXT 08
1. Nit updates made based on the feedback provided by Peter Yee.
2. Update to the definition of the <value> element based on feedback
from Sabrina Tanamal.
3. Added a sentence in the Introduction section to cover the poison
poll message motivation based on feedback from Qin Wu.
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft unhandledNamespaces February 2021
4. Changed "does not define new protocol" to "does not define new
EPP protocol elements" based on feedback from Erik Kline.
5. Changed to use "apply" instead of "support" language in Section 3
based on feedback from Benjamin Kaduk.
6. Updated the examples that reference RFC examples to reference the
RFC section of the example and have the starting XML match based
on feedback from Benjamin Kaduk.
7. Changed "SHOULD consider validating" to "SHOULD validate" in the
Security Considerations section based on feedback from Benjamin
Kaduk.
8. Moved RFC 3915, RFC 5910, and RFC 8590 as informational
references based on feedback from Benjamin Kaduk.
Authors' Addresses
James Gould
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
United States of America
Email: jgould@verisign.com
URI: http://www.verisigninc.com
Martin Casanova
SWITCH
P.O. Box
CH-8021 Zurich
Switzerland
Email: martin.casanova@switch.ch
URI: http://www.switch.ch
Gould & Casanova Expires 23 August 2021 [Page 23]
